This is, as the information age goes, old news. However, seeing that with the confirming of Kathleen Sebelius, a person that holds Obama's views of murdering the unborn and leaving a live baby from a botched abortion to die in a closet alone, this needs to get repeated as often as we possibly can.
Obama, the alleged constitutional professor, the fraud that stated that the constitution doesn't go far enough in giving the federal government enough power and provides for those "negative rights", wants to eliminate constitutioinal due process.
There are two articles that I have read and both got their data from the Telegraph UK. Not an American news outlet but one in England.
Hot Air: Obama to end representation in interrogations?
Apologies to Glenn Reynolds, but they said if I voted for a Republican in 2008, I’d wind up with an autocratic administration determined to wipe out civil rights — and they were right! The Obama administration has argued for the end of the Michigan v Jackson ruling that requires police to provide an attorney for a suspect once one has been requested. They argue that the benefits are “meagre,” as the Telegraph puts it: (read the rest - it is all about eliminating the Sixth Amendment)
All American Blogger: Obama Administration Wants Supreme Court to Limit Defendents’ RIghts
[...] Disappointing is an understatement. When you look at what the Obama administration is trying to do here, you have to wonder why they would what to eliminate this.
There really is no purpose in limiting the rights of the defendent. They are assumed innocent still, right?
Yep. That damn Constitution is in the way. Especially that POS Sixth Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
MICHIGAN V. JACKSON, 475 U. S. 625 (1986)
[...] Indeed, after a formal accusation has been made -- and a person who had previously been just a "suspect" has become an "accused" within the meaning of the Sixth Amendment -- the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel is of such importance that the police may no longer employ techniques for eliciting information from an uncounseled defendant that might have been entirely proper at an earlier stage of their investigation. Thus, the surreptitious employment of a cellmate, see United States v. Henry, 447 U. S. 264 (1980), or the electronic surveillance of conversations with third parties, see Maine v. Moulton, supra; Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964), may violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel even though the same methods of investigation might have been permissible before arraignment or indictment. [Footnote 5] Far from undermining the Edwards rule, the difference between the legal basis for the rule applied in Edwards and the Sixth Amendment claim asserted in these cases actually provides additional support for the application of the rule in these circumstances. [...]
Obama wants to do away with these constitutional Rights, people. And that is for everyone. Even the people that voted for him, supported him, worship and work for him. Everyone. Period.
And the BDS dwellers said Bush II shred the US Constitution? Show me.
- Conservative Nation » Cnations picks for 4/25/2009
- Obama Wants to End Legal Representation Requirement in Interrogations | The American Pundit
- Obama Admin Seeks to Revoke Americans' Right to Counsel During Interrogations | The Lonely Conservative
- Always To The Right
- Does Obama Talk to the Middle But Walk to the Far Left? | THE WEEKLY POINT
- You Do Not have a Right to an Attorney in the USA.. | newsenvelope.com
- PoliGazette » Pondering Montejo v. Louisiana and the Right to Counsel
- Public Secrets
- Against Barack Obama
- No More Right To Legal Counsel? « Beltway Snark
- Who was the worst president? - Page 2 - Apoliticalforum.com
According to these enemies within, no one has any Rights unless they say so. And McCain was Bush III? If GWB was shredding the Constitution, what do you call what Obama is doing?
The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
from brityank via BTR:
All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)
When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.